#But the source material (no matter how shitty it is) might provide some cool concepts if you reanalyse or rematch it idk what I'm saying du | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

grimtime · 6 years ago

Text

Analysis of an analysis

The main plot of The Room is very simple and God I wish I lived in the universe in which it weren’t, just to see, what it would’ve been like if the director were allowed to go fucking ham on the script. It reads like something I’d have written when I was like 9, only to go back and remove the more blatantly unrealistic elements (pirates) and insert in a lot of what my 9 year old idea of Adult Drama would be.

Jesus fucking Christ okay gimme an exacto knife and I’ll slice these boxes there is already way too much to unpack.

Why am I drawn to convolution? Why does it matter to me if the director had total creative freedom? Why would my nine year old self write a misogynistic story about betrayal culminating in a suicide and why would that be my nine year old idea of adult drama? Why did I specify I liked pirates when I was nine? Does that matter?

It’s about a woman (Lisa) who cheats on her fiance (Johnny) with his best friend (Mark), because she’s fallen out of love with him, and the inaction of everyone involved as well as the transgression itself drives Johnny to commit suicide.

Did Tommy Wiseau intend for everyone else to betray Johnny through their inaction, or was that just my understanding of it at the time? I rewatched the film yesterday and actually, a LOT of characters try their best to mitigate the damage and stop it in its tracks. So why did I say they were inactive?

I kinda wanna make a shittily edited montage with scenes of Mark and Johnny to Even In Death or My Immortal or something like that by Amy Lee but I don’t know how to edit video, so that’s out, for now.

Why do I want to do this? It’s not a competent film, but why do I want to mock it? Also, I like Amy Lee, so why do I want to mock it through that specific medium? And why do I want to focus it on Mark and Johnny? What’s the relevance of that? Why did I choose those two songs specifically as well? Both of which focus on grieving and being haunted by the memory of a dead loved one.

There are a few unresolved subplots as well which I’ll get to later.

The film introduces the two main characters, Johnny and Lisa, by Johnny giving Lisa a red dress as a gift. If a man got me a sexy red dress as a gift I’d kill him. Fucking dresses and flowers and petals he’s just PERFORMING romance. He performs EVERYTHING with symbolic shorthand “oh, how do people act, men play catch I think? Eeeerrrrr then I will have my men play catch. In SUITS. Yeah this is humanity I fuckin’ nailed it.”

Why do I feel the need to specify that I wouldn’t appreciate a sexy red dress from a man as a gift? It makes sense for a man to gift his fiance a sexy red dress. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Why did I specify that I wouldn’t appreciate it, when my personal distaste has nothing to do with it. Nobody reading this needs to know. I don’t need to tell them that.

Why so critical about Johnny’s performance of human concepts like male friendship and romance? Why did I mock it? What is wrong about it?

There’s a running thread throughout this movie, wherein Johnny’s primary mode of affection is incredibly materialistic, and his friends value him primarily for what he can do for them on a financial/material scale. #Crapitalism. Similarly Lisa is only ever valued by other people for her external appearance cuz all the men are thotty creeps.

Is this assertion even accurate? Johnny provides emotional support to his friends throughout the movie. It might be more accurate to say that Johnny values *himself* for what he can provide. But this isn’t about that. Why did I discard his emotional support? Why did I assert that his affection is materialistic only? Why did I say his friends only value him based on that?

I don’t think I’m wrong about what Lisa is valued for. But why did I pick up on that in the first place?

Blaa blaa fucking blaa dichotomy between realism crossing into surrealism Tommy Wiseau’s a misogynist and I can and will fucking make Lisa an interesting character blaa blaa fucking blaa nobody’s going to read this fuck you.

Why did I mock my own analysis in this paragraph and only very disparagingly allude to the realism -> surrealism? Is it because it’s kind of fucking pretentious? It IS. But why do I give a shit. And why do I simply just not shut the fuck up and not say it at all? Why do I say it? Am I trying to communicate I know it’s inherently kind of ridiculous? Why? For who? What am I hoping to maintain?

Why did I gravitate so strongly to Lisa’s defense despite knowing she has very few, if ANY, redeeming personality traits. I know if she were a real person I wouldn’t like her. Why do I feel the need to impose depth on a character that wasn’t intended to have any? Defiance in response to the inherently misogynic portrayal of women? Why do I feel the need to defy Tommy Wiseau’s original intentions? What am I expecting to accomplish?

If I posit that I have no audience, who is this for? And WHY do I posit that I have no audience? Why is that important? What purpose does pointing it out serve?

Lisa is the surreal element- every other character is pretty fuckin’ preoccupied in their social status and place in their society and maintaining it, bitch gets what she wants she ain’t about that conformity. I mean she’s also an adulterer but fucking hell I have to impose depth art is interpretive blaa blaa fucking blaa why did I delete my blog I don’t remember anyone’s URL LMAO.

Here I equate surrealism with anti-conformity. Which is kind of strange, because it implies that I think conforming to society, accepting your social status, and maintaining it is realistic. The tone of this paragraph when talking about Lisa’s “surrealism” is pretty positive toward her. Which would also imply that I think realism is bad.

Why do I HAVE to impose depth and my own ideas onto Lisa specifically? Why do I keep justifying myself with “art is interpretive”?

I then proceed to dip the fuck out and mock my impulsiveness as if trying to remind an audience (that I supposedly do not have) that I’m self aware of my own pretentious and inherently kind of stupid shortcomings. But if there’s no audience, as I said earlier, who is that directed toward?

Anyway I guess there’s something to be said for Johnny destroying all his possessions at the climax of the movie. Once he loses his trophy woman to his best friend he has nothing left, does he? He really has nothing going for him. I mean he has his job still but when he loses his already pretty flimsy social life all he has left are his materialistic possessions and they can’t exactly do therapy at him. But his entire life is his job and what he can possess. Destroying the only things he has left is self destruction. SHE TORE HIM APART.

Why would I claim that he has nothing but his material possessions left? I don’t think this is supported by the movie. He has his other friends. He has Denny. I’m contradicting the source material to impose a certain idea onto Johnny. Why?

Why did I reference a line in the movie to mock his act of self destruction?

Ripping Lisa’s red dress at the end is a symbolic murder– because I don’t believe he ever saw Lisa as her own person. He saw her as another thing he could possess. A symbol of status he could dress up. A material. Lisa may as well have been a bit of red fabric. After all the momentum of the film often halts just to have characters comment on her hotness. Supporting this statement is the fact that, although she was lying about physical abuse, he does get pretty physical with her soon after. Foreshadowing? Fuck if I know, this movie wasn’t made competently. Was I written competently? Am I going to spiral before I die? Questions questions! All of them edgy!

I don’t know that I’m correct when I say that Lisa was his trophy, and a status symbol. He killed himself over her unfaithfulness. He stated a few times that she was clever. So why do I assert that she’s no different than any other possession he had?

Does the momentum of the film REALLY come to a halt to have characters remark on her appearance? Why do I take notice of that? Why is it important to me to say that?

I support that the tearing of the red dress is symbolic of murder by stating that Lisa’s lies about being physically abused are foreshadowing of that event. Maybe that’s a stretch in the context of the FILM, but I’ve also asserted that joking about having a heart attack was foreshadowing for my heart attack, so even though it’s a stretch when you apply that to the FILM, it’s not a stretch when you apply that to REALITY. Why is foreshadowing important to me in that way?

I immediately state I don’t know, and that the movie wasn’t made competently, but we all knew it wasn’t. I immediately focus back on real life implications. Was my attempt at comprehending the narrative of The Room an attempt to comprehend the narrative of real life? If so, why did I pick THE ROOM, of all movies? If you’re self deprecating on a blog with no followers and nobody reads your post, does it make a meaning?

I wonder if there are any shitty fanfics written about Tommy Wiseau on wattpad. I’m not looking. But I fucking wonder.

Why the change in topic? Why wattpad, a fiction site known for mostly hosting kids fictions? Why am I drawn to haphazardly made fiction?

Nevermind I looked and there’s “Trapped On An Island With Tommy Wiseau”. Fucking. Glorious. Why didn’t I pick THAT to over analyse? Holy fucking shit it’s amazing. I want to know where THAT story is going.

Whatever.

Why did I change my mind and look? I immediately contradict myself. Why DIDN’T I analyse that fiction over this one? Why did I like it so much? Why did I want to know where that was going? Why “whatever”? Is not saying something just as important as saying it? Bring up an idea only to dismiss it immediately after.

So anyway, people repeat themselves when they talk sometimes, and they do it in the movie as well. That’s cool. That’s good. That adds some naturalism to it. That makes it seem like real people talking and not actors. Yeah.

The tone of this paragraph is different to all the other paragraphs. Why? What was I thinking?

EXCEPT IT DIVES ASS OVER TEAKETTLE INTO SURREALISM! When those people repeat themselves in ways that don’t make sense as a shorthand way to progress the scene. It’s just a single step removed from [INSERT SOMETHING TO CHANGE THE SCENE HERE]. “I don’t want to talk about it.”

What’s the purpose of pointing this out? I remember saying this and wondering if I’ve ever heard or said any artificial, fake sounding excuses to progress a plot or scene. Why did I pick “I don’t want to talk about it” as my cited quote over all the other choices? Do I just not want to talk about it anymore? If I didn’t- I wouldn’t. Does the AUTHOR not want me to talk about it? That is after all the same reason Lisa reuses that quote over and over. She wouldn’t bring it up if she didn’t want to. Tommy Wiseau is the one who wants her to stop talking about it. Why can I not focus too hard on this?

It’s something isn’t it. Damn. Yep. I’m chewing gum with the paper still on it just to see what happens. Hope it’s not poisoooooooon.

I unceremoniously change the subject to totally irrelevant bullshit, highlighting my own stupidity, as if to remind somebody of it. What audience? Then the subject of poison. Why?

Aw hell I had to talk about the subplots. Iuno. INSERT SUBPLOT BLATHERING HERE. Danny took drugs. That was something. Amazingly the movie treats drugs and alcohol as bigger sins than attempted murder and assault! The characters do! Everyone does! Fucking glorious. IT’S NOT WHAT THE ILLICIT SUBSTANCES MAKE YOU DO UNDER THE INFLUENCE, IT’S THAT YA TOOK EM AT ALL! I forget what it means.

I hastily talk about the subplots, only really focusing on the alcohol and drugs/attempted murder and assault, for the purpose of mocking the condemnation of both over murder/domestic abuse. Why so hastily and haphazard, though? “I forget what it means” but I still bring it up? Why?

YOU ARE TEARING ME APART, NOCTURNE-DOLCE!!!

Why this joke? Is there significance to putting Nocturne in the role of Lisa? The placement of this joke is odd, too. Why here? Why now? Why out of nowhere? What am I mocking? Why am I mocking it? It’s a total non-sequitur.

Yeah. I wonder if I could construct a shitty emo poem using only lines of dialogue from The Room.

Why?

Don’t leave I need you, I love you Everything is going wrong

You don’t want to talk to me

They trick me They didn’t keep their promise They betray me, and I don’t care anymore

You are TEARING ME APART

I don’t care

Everything is not okay

Don’t worry about it

It’s definitely shitty.

Why did I pick these specific lines of dialogue? Why did I do this at all? Who benefits from it? What’s it even saying?

The more I think on it the more I realize that Lisa is literally the only character that develops as the movie goes on. I mean her development is basically “HOT ADULTERER IS EVIL WOMAN BITCH” but, yknow, at least she’s not like poor dumb Mark who has sex with her countless times and still manages to be stunned when she proposistions him for sex.

Why did I pick up on this? What significance does it have?

Arguably she’s also the only character that shows any kind of agency; all the other characters seem to have their patterns. Mark asks her “why are you doing this to me” as if he’s a totally passive, blameless bystander, each scene with Claudette is exactly the same as the last, etc. The only character that really advances the plot is Lisa.

Are there blameless bystanders in our reality? Who have no agency? Are we some of them? Are we Lisa, or are we Mark? Is agency indicative of immorality in the context of this movie and our lives?

Lisa: agent of chaos and change. I unironically adore the PISS out of her dialogue. Check it the fuck out:

If so what does my admiration say about me? She is unquestionably the villain of the film? Why do I choose her as the favorite?

You know, I really loved Johnny at first. Everything’s changed. I need more from life than what Johnny can give me. Suddenly my eyes are wide open and I can see everything so clearly. I want it all.

If he can’t give me what I want, somebody else will.

You have to take as much as you can. You have to live, live, live.

I don’t see what the big deal is. Doesn’t everybody look out for number one? Don’t I deserve the best?

There is no baby. I told him that to make it interesting. We’re probably going to have a baby eventually anyway.

I am not responsible for Johnny. I’m through with that. I’m changing. I have the right, don’t I? People are changing all the time. I have to think about my future. What’s it to you?

Do I identify with Lisa? If so, why? Is it because she’s supposed to be representative of all woman and I’m compelled to argue against the really sexist idea of that while still obeying the framework of the movie? Or is it foreshadowing of future villainy? Foreshadowing is after all significant? Is my pursuit of personal agency evil?

Hot take: Lisa and Lola are the same character except one is a fish from Shark Tale and the other is Lisa from The Room.

This is ominous.

#logpost

0 notes